No multiple pleas on same problem: HC
[ad_1]
Reiterating that multiple petitions on same problem wouldn’t be entertained, Telangana High Court on Friday disposed of 5 write petitions regarding Dharani portal and its related issues.
However, the High Court determined to listen to two PIL pleas on Dharani portal problem whereas detaching one other PIL petition pertaining to switch of lands in scheduled areas of the State involving rights of tribal communities. When the batch of three PIL pleas and 5 writ petitions got here up for listening to, the bench of Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy expressed dissatisfaction over submitting of multiple pleas on the same matter.
“Not going to allow this…,” the Chief Justice stated whereas listening to the pleas. However, the Chief Justice categorically said that the counsels of the petitioners, who filed pleas with related content material, can help the court docket in adjudication of the issues and put ahead strategies if they’ve any. The bench stated no when a few attorneys requested for inclusion of their names within the pleas that have been retained for adjudication in order that they might learn in regards to the dates of listening to.
“Names are not important,” the Chief Justice remarked, including that they will know in regards to the dates from the counsels involved. The bench gave 4 weeks of time to Advocate General B.S. Prasad when he stated that he needed to safe directions on the matter however not earlier than posing queries on what the federal government is proposing to do on the topic. Lawyer Vasudha Nagaraj, showing in a PIL plea regarding switch or registration of lands in scheduled areas of the State, stated her petition was totally different from others related to Dharani. She sought an earlier date for subsequent listening to of the matter contending that authorities is violating guidelines associated to the matter. But the Chief Justice requested if the counsel defined in regards to the particular violations within the rejoinder and turned down her request stating the rejoinder didn’t present any info on that. The earlier day, the bench disposed of a number of PIL pleas filed by totally different individuals on points regarding COVID-19 — asserting that multiple pleas on same points wouldn’t be entertained.
You have reached your restrict at no cost articles this month.
